alert - warning

This page has not been translated into Español. Visit the Español page for resources in that language.

Creek Embankment Repair

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DesastreFEMA-1046-DR
ApplicantAtascadero Unified School District
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#079-91026
PW ID#39937
Date Signed1998-04-08T04:00:00

 

 


Citation:  FEMA-1046-DR-CA; Atascadero Unified School District; DSR 39937

Cross

Reference:
Creek embankment repairs, Eligible costs, maintained natural feature.

Summary: During the winter of 1995, stormwater caused two segments of an embankment that lines Atascadero Creek to erode. This embankment is located on property owned and maintained by the Atascadero Unified School District.


After reviewing information submitted by the applicant regarding this appeal, it is evident that maintenance to the natural facility has taken place in the past. On two different occasions, the applicant stated that shore protection was installed in the area that sustained damages, and therefore qualifies as a maintained natural feature and eligible for reimbursement.

Issues:
1) Was the damaged stream embankment maintained by the applicant.

Findings: 1) Yes. On two occasions the applicant's maintenance personnel applied embankment protection to the damaged area.

Rationale:
The site is an improved and maintained natural facility.

Appeal Letter

April 8, 1998

Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Disaster Assistance Program Branch, Public Assistance Section
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, Second Floor
Pasadena, California 91103-3678


Dear Mr. Najera:

This letter is in response to your September 16, 1997, transmittal of the Atascadero Unified School District's second appeal of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 39937. The applicant is requesting additional funding to restore a damaged embankment along Atascadero Creek.

It has been determined that the damages in question were incurred to a site maintained by the Atascadero Unified School District, and are eligible for funding. The original assessment called for grouted riprap to line the damaged area. It has been determined that the use of dumped riprap will restore the site to its predisaster condition. The appeal is approved for $19,052 of the $54,973 requested. For a detailed discussion of my findings please refer to the enclosed appeal analysis.

By copy of this letter, I am asking the Regional Director to take appropriate action to implement this determination.

Please inform the applicant of my determination. The applicant may submit a third appeal to the Director of FEMA. The appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of this determination.

Sincerely,



Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure


cc: Acting Regional Director
FEMA Region IX

Appeal Analysis

 



BACKGROUND

As a result of the winter storms in 1995, floodwaters damaged the embankment of Atascadero Creek, adjacent to Atascadero Junior High School, in San Luis Obispo County, California. The high velocity water created two separate large voids in the southerly embankment situated between the creek and a school building.

On September 14, 1995, the damage inspection team, which included a State and Federal inspector, as well as a representative of the Atascadero Unified School District, surveyed the damages along the creek embankment. The inspection team detailed the extent of the damages to the southerly embankment and prepared damage survey report (DSR) 39937. The inspection team decided to repair the damages with grouted riprap (Code 4080) and dumped riprap (Code 4070). The DSR was written for a total of $54,973, which included $1,400 to repair the damaged fence along the creek. This method of repair was concurred by all members of the inspection team.

During the review process, eligible costs on the DSR were reduced to $1,400, the amount necessary to repair the damaged fence along the property. It was determined that damages to the embankment were not eligible for reimbursement because the creek was considered a natural feature.

First Appeal

The subgrantee submitted its first appeal concerning DSR 39937 to the State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services by letter of October 30, 1996. The State then presented the appeal to the Region on behalf of the subgrantee by letter dated December 24, 1996.

The applicant's appeal was based on the fact that Atascadero Unified School District felt it had provided maintenance to the damaged site when it was needed, and therefore rendering the site as an improved natural feature. The applicant stated that the site has been maintained through the years by the school district and currently, as a result of the damages, imposes an "immediate threat" to an adjacent building. The applicant requested $54, 973 in addition to the $1,400 that was approved to restore the site to pre-disaster condition. The approved amount was for repairs to a chain link fence that lines the creek, and is not part of this appeal. The original DSR was written for a total of $54,973, which included $1,400 for the fence. It is apparent that the applicant is requesting duplicated funding for the fence repairs.

The first appeal was denied by the region on the basis that Atascadero Creek is a natural feature. Any modifications to the embankment made by the applicant were not significant and did not constitute an improved site. The Regional Director also determined that the damages to the southerly embankment did not pose a threat to any of the buildings adjacent to Atascadero Creek, and did not create endangerment to human health or life.

Second Appeal

The subgrantee submitted its second appeal concerning DSR 39937 to the State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services by letter of July 23, 1997. The State then presented the appeal to the Region on behalf of the subgrantee by letter dated September 16, 1997. The applicant stated in the second appeal letter that the appeal was centered on DSR 39938. After consulting the subgrantee it was determined that this was an error, and that DSR 39937 was the focus of the appeal.

The applicant's basis for the appeal centers around the premise that the Creek has been maintained through the years, and currently imposes an "immediate threat" to the adjacent buildings on the property.

DISCUSSION

The primary focus of this appeal centers on whether the facility was maintained by the applicant, and that the natural facility was in some way altered to establish an improved site. The applicant stated that on two different occasions, embankment protection was installed in the area of the damages. Although the site was not on a maintenance schedule, it is evident that the applicant has maintained the facility when needed by installing the embankment protection, and removing any debris that might hinder stream flow. However, it is not clear how much bank protection was in place prior to the declared incident.

The original DSR called for an estimated amount of grouted riprap. This is considered a significant improvement to the site, and is not considered a viable method of repair. The DSR also quantified an amount of dumped riprap to provide a means of repair.

The subgrantee has claimed that the foundation of the administration building is in danger of being undermined by the adjacent creek slope. However, the applicant has not submitted information to substantiate this claim.

CONCLUSION

The applicant provided a small amount of maintenance to the creek embankment prior to the damages that were sustained under 1046-DR-CA. Therefore, the site is deemed eligible for reimbursement.

The original method of repair called for grouted riprap to line the length of the damaged embankment. It has been determined that this is not a feasible approach considering the cost of the installation. The best approach would be to line the damaged area with dumped riprap, filling the voids as well.

It is estimated that approximately 433 cubic yards of riprap will be needed to accomplish this. Using FEMA cost codes for dumped riprap (Code 4070) at $44 per cubic yard, a reimbursement cost of $19,052 has been established. Therefore, the appeal has been approved for $19,052. The Regional Director will prepare a supplemental DSR for this amount.